Syndication

August 05, 2005

Roberts and Romer v. Evans

The latest news about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts (other than the New York Times' muckraking) is that back in the mid-nineties he offered his legal services pro-bono to those trying to overturn Colorado's Amendment 2, which would have prevented homosexuals to have the same kind of civil-rights status that minorities like Blacks have. The Amendment was passed by 53.5 percent of the vote. The Amendment read...

Neither the state of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

Note that the word “behavior” is used. Not only did the ultimate Supreme Court decision in Romer v. Evans toss out the majority decision of the voters, it set a precedent that one could be declared a minority, simply because one chose to engage in a specific behavior. Previously such protection was limited to race, gender, religious beliefs and political affiliation. (not that a political affiliation would make one a minority, but that discrimination based on political affiliation would hinder the very democratic processes by which the government depends)

Race is not something that's chosen. While some people get themselves mutilated, then pretend to be a different gender, such pretense is still debated in court as to its legitimacy in actually, legally making someone of another gender. Religious discrimination also falls directly under the Constitutional protections provided in the First Amendment. Deciding to engage in perverted sex, however, is certainly not something that the framers of the Constitution considered deserving of special protection.

So the real problem with Roberts' involvement is not as much the homosexual thing, but that he would assist an obvious attempt at Judicial Activism. He placed himself squarely in the camp of those that want the Constitution interpreted via modern cultural whims, rather than the intent of the Founding Fathers. It doesn't speak well of his dedication to original intent nor his concept of what Federalism really is.